It is interesting to note that the "New Atheist" not only didn't respond with any rational anything, he deleted my comments that were visible on his BlogCatalog profile page. His comments to me are still visible on my profile and will be until they automatically move to page 2 (still publicly accessible). (See also: TOM USHER'S BLOG CATALOG SHOUT-TO-SHOUT WITH THE SELF-STYLED NEW ATHEIST.)

BlogCatalog users know when other users have deleted shouts because they are missing when the user accesses the shout-to-shout feature. The New Atheist feared visitors to his profile would see how illogical he is.

I don't say this for the sake of malicious gossip against him. I don't say it without cause either. Those two things are important in terms of real Christianity. I point it out for the sake of the many who might be lulled to sleep by the not only spiritual dumbing-down by atheists but the actual death of their spirits. They kill their own and each other's spirits if they ever had living spirits — realized it.

Living spirits here means self-aware spirituality necessarily transcending matter. It is the semantical issue of substance that is their stumbling block.

Anyway, the self-style New Atheist came looking for me in a sense. He's the one who initiated contact. Of course, he assumed I'd check out his profile and site. Not everyone bothers to do those things of course. Some people just want to build links regardless. I link to sites with which I disagree. I "friend" (verb) people in the social-networking sense where "friend" doesn't mean friend in the Christian sense. I have very few real even budding friendships in the true Christian sense yet.

The point here is though that the atheist was looking for weak prey. He's a predator out to proselytize for Godlessness. When he was immediately confronted by, among other things, his obvious intellectual error, he reacted wholly inappropriately. He wasn't interested to grow and to become enlightened. He rather feared those things and slithered away.

He never identified himself because he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. He wants to be able to sever himself from his stated standards. Well, it doesn't work that way. God sees all no matter what you think you're doing not to be seen. No one can hide in that sense from the spirit of God.

How should this young man have reacted? He should have admitted that he blew it. He should have begun to wonder why he made such a fundamental error. His foundation isn't sound. Rather than change/transform foundations, he ran away. His house will fall. It already has fallen. In very truth, it was never standing.

Is this a curse? It's a warning from one manning the wall sounding the alarm that evil has enter through the crooked, wide gates and that the city is in darkness and will be devoured.

Afterwards, evil ones left in other places will not make the connection between the evil that entered and devoured and the fact of the ruined cities. They aren't smart enough for that even though it's child's play and many of them consider themselves geniuses.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.